Buying or Selling IPv4 Addresses?

Watch this video to discover how ACCELR/8, a transformative trading platform developed by industry veterans Marc Lindsey and Janine Goodman, enables organizations to buy or sell IPv4 blocks as small as /20s.

While the Internet governance debate devours headlines, it's almost easy to forget that ICANN is in the midst of the most audacious and important policy process it has ever undertaken. And while many new generic top-level domains are now live, the process of ensuring the best opportunity to fulfill their potential is not yet complete.

We recently reached the milestone of 280,000 registrations in the Donuts gTLDs that are currently generally available. After years of policy and business development, it is extremely gratifying to finally begin fulfilling our and the industry's mission of providing specific and relevant gTLDs to users worldwide and we look forward to our weekly launches of many more meaningful names.

But even amid that excitement and the flurry of activity surrounding each new batch of gTLDs we make available to the public, we are keenly aware of obstacles standing in the way of gTLD applicants who have invested significant resources of time and money in the new gTLD program.

The New gTLD Program should be the culmination of ICANN's original mission to introduce real competition to the domain name marketplace. The program should dramatically increase consumer choice, end an era of false scarcity and artificial limitation, and create a marketplace driven by real competition.

The registries participating in the program are already providing some of that value, to be sure, but we remain hobbled by a series of conscious policy decisions that intentionally constrain our ability to compete with the very incumbents against whom we were created to compete.

The steps we take now and in the coming months and years to level that playing field, and provide a real and competitive landscape will go a long way toward determining the success of the program.

As of today, participants in the new gTLD program are subject to several key competitive disadvantages, relating to our registrar channels, the domains we are able to sell, and the complicated rules under which we can sell them.

Getting registrars on board to sell new domains was always going to be a challenge. But what no one involved in the new gTLD program could have known when first applying to participate is that participation came with an automatic 30 percent degradation in the available sales channel just as a cost of doing business.

That, however, is the precise impact of ICANN staff's unilateral decision to use new gTLDs to induce registrars to sign the recently completed Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Under current rules, only the registrars governed by the 2013 RAA are permitted to sell any new gTLDs — in Donuts' case, almost a third of our contracted registrars may not sell our new gTLDs because, for varying reasons, they have not signed the new RAA.

Those registrars sponsor about 18 percent of current total domains under management. These registrars can sell registrations in the incumbent gTLDs and ccTLDs, but not new gTLDs.

The sentiment behind this new provision might be understandable, but it's critical we begin to move away from a construct that creates separate, unequal policy frameworks for new and incumbent gTLDs.

ICANN's approach to name collision creates similar challenges. The risk mitigation plan currently in place is too conservative, eliminating three highly appealing new gTLDs outright, placing about 20 percent more under indefinite hiatus, and limiting the go-to-market speed of all that remain. Not coincidentally, the domains caught in the most restrictive "protections" neatly overlap with those likely to provide the most competition to incumbents like .COM. The new name collision proposal needlessly delays the ability for new gTLDs to go to market, all while permitting names to be registered in incumbent gTLDs where name collisions have existed for years and continue today.

Stability and security are critical, but too often in our community those words are used as a cudgel to beat back innovation and growth. In medicine, physicians — for obvious reasons — are trained to use the "least-invasive" procedure to treat a specific condition. At ICANN, however, we're still doing the equivalent of elective amputations.

For instance, new gTLD registries are not permitted to register any names that are two-character labels, regardless of whether they correspond to an existing ccTLD label, absent a process for ICANN approval. None of the incumbent gTLDs had or continue to have the same restrictions.

In most industries, regulators who wish to foster competition give new entrants some advantages over the incumbents (vs. "protections" in new gTLDs that protect incumbent positions), to offset the natural advantages of incumbency. In trying to foster gTLD competition ICANN has done the opposite — they have saddled the new entrants with additional disadvantages, but not the incumbents.

So this week in Singapore, in the breaks between Internet governance discussions, participants should turn their focus to ensuring the program we worked so hard to create enjoys a level playing field between incumbents and new entrants and fulfills its potential.

If you are pressed for time ...

... this is for you. More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Vinton Cerf, Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Share your comments

I couldn't agree more with the principles you lay out here. Somehow the familiar story-line of scrappy upstarts introducing new, better services in an industry dominated by faceless behemoths has been perverted at ICANN into one where the new entrants are seen as "industry insiders" trying to pull the wool over the eyes of naive and innocent incumbents. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The issues go beyond those of the 2009 vs. 2013 RRAs. They have to do with innovative services that are subject to expensive and excruciatingly long reviews; with fuzzy distinctions between registries and registrars that are being interpreted by established players in ways that harm new entrants; and with a registry agreement that can be changed at any time, opening wide a door for new regulatory burdens and costs at a moment's notice on a fledgling and vulnerable marketplace.

While ICANN executives are rightly concerned to make sure that the Internet is truly global, and that the multi-stakeholder model is extended and protected, they need to take care that they don't fall into the trap of trying to control the market with a heavy hand.

The urge to control economic activity is tempting for a regulator, but a heavy hand has never worked. It simply forces the real economy underground, and the regulators find that they are controlling only a small portion of economic activity, while the real market moves outside their purview without any controls whatever. ICANN and participating governments need to realize that they must govern with a light hand, or find that they are governing very little at all.

I agree the playing field should beJames Harps – Mar 22, 2014 6:49 AM PST

I agree the playing field should be leveled for all TLDs, including among the new gTLD applicants themselves. That process should start with a uniform application of the Applicant Guidebook rules for qualification on all applicants. #Stoler

Related

WHOIS access and development of an interim GDPR compliance model remains THE hot topic within the ICANN community. Developments are occurring at a break-neck pace, as ICANN and contracted parties push for an implementable solution ahead of the May 25, 2018 effective date of the GDPR... ICANN is now poised to formally publish the convergence model, although the community continues to discuss and seek a solution that is acceptable for all stakeholders. more

The European Commission recently released technical input on ICANN's proposed GDPR-compliant WHOIS models that underscores the GDPR's "Accuracy" principle - making clear that reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the accuracy of any personal data obtained for WHOIS databases and that ICANN should be sure to incorporate this requirement in whatever model it adopts. Contracted parties concerned with GDPR compliance should take note. more

There is an urgent need to clarify the GDPR's territorial scope. Of the many changes the GDPR will usher in this May, the expansion of EU privacy law's territorial scope is one of the most important. The GDPR provides for broad application of its provisions both within the EU and globally. But the fact that the GDPR has a broad territorial scope does not mean that every company, or all data processing activities, are subject to it. more

When you've been around the domain industry for as long as I have, you start to lose track of time. I was reminded late last year that the 6-year agreement Verisign struck with ICANN in 2012 to operate .com will be up for expiration in November of this year. Now, I don't for a second believe that .com will be operated by any other party, as Verisign's contract does give them the presumptive right of renewal. But what will be interesting to watch is what happens to Verisign's ability to increase the wholesale cost of .com names. more

Panels appointed to hear and decide disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) have long recognized that three letter domains are valuable assets. How investors value their domains depends in part on market conditions. Ordinarily (and for good reason) Panels do not wade into pricing because it is not a factor on its own in determining bad faith. more

Cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin) are all the rage -- so, naturally, related domain name disputes are, too. The wild fluctuations in cryptocurrency prices (Bitcoin hit a low of close to $6,000 this week, after reaching an all-time high of more than $19,000 only two months ago, and less than $1,000 a year ago) have attracted speculators, regulators and now even cybersquatters. more

With GDPR coming into effect this May, it is almost a forgone conclusion that WHOIS as we know it today, will change. Without knowing the full details, how can companies begin to prepare? First and foremost, ensuring that brand protection, security and compliance departments are aware that a change to WHOIS access is on the horizon is an important first step. Just knowing that the ability to uncover domain ownership information is likely to change in the future will help to relieve some of the angst that is likely to occur. more

Earlier today ICANN held a webinar to provide an update on their data privacy activities in relation to whois and GDPR. Rather than simply talking about the various "models" they produced both a visual mapping as well as a matrix. While some attendees may not agree with how all the models are classified it is still a helpful way of showing the deviations from the current fully public whois model for gTLD domain name registrations. more

The defining of rights in the UDRP process is precisely what WIPO and ICANN contemplated, but it is unlikely they foresaw the destination of the jurisprudence. Since its inception, UDRP Panels have adjudicated over 75,000 disputes, some involving multiple domain names. (These numbers, incidentally, are a tiny fraction of the number of registered domain names in legacy and new top-level domains, which exceeded 320 million in the first quarter 2017). more

The way the Internet operates drove a wedge between strings of lexical and numeric characters used as marks and alphanumeric strings used as addresses. Domain names were described by Steve Forbes in a 2007 press release as virtual real estate. It is, he said, analogous to the market in real property: "Internet traffic and domains are the prime real estate of the 21st century." more

Unicode's goal, which it meets quite well, is that whatever text you want to represent in whatever language, dead or alive, Unicode can represent the characters or symbols it uses. Any computer with a set of Unicode typefaces and suitable layout software can display that text. In effect, Unicode is primarily a typesetting language. Over in the domain name system, we also use Unicode to represent non-ASCII identifiers. That turns out to be a problem because an identifier needs a unique form, something that doesn't matter for typesetting. more

Before the Internet, the sole competition for strings of characters employable as marks was other businesses vying to use the same strings for their own products and services. National registries solved this competition by allowing businesses in different channels of commerce to register the same strings but prohibiting competitors in the same industries from using identical or confusingly similar marks on the grounds that they were likely (at best) to create confusion and (at worst) to deceive the public. more

On January 24, 2018, ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) and Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) co-hosted an event to discuss the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its implications on access to the WHOIS database. ICANN's CEO and General Counsel joined the discussion, as did stakeholders from across the ICANN community. The event was timely and well attended with over 200 participants attending in-person or virtually. more

I am a student of life, learning one hard lesson at a time. In fact, I actually dropped out of my last year of college to start a tech company in a new space called the internet. I was an entrepreneur running an online service prior to the advent of the world wide web in 1992, back when Pine, Usenet, and Gopher ruled the information superhighway. Over the last 25 years, I have learned a great deal about technology adoption cycles by launching six internet companies, each at the forefront of a new technology wave. more

The Trademark Act of 1946 defines trademarks and service marks to include "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof." Marks composed of lexical and numeric elements (as opposed to images) also can be described as strings of characters. Before the Internet there was no commercial use of such strings other than as marks, but the functionality of the Internet depends on strings of lexical and numeric characters in the form of domain names that serve as electronic addresses. more

Promoted Post

Buying or Selling IPv4 Addresses?

Watch this video to discover how ACCELR/8, a transformative trading platform developed by industry veterans Marc Lindsey and Janine Goodman, enables organizations to buy or sell IPv4 blocks as small as /20s.

Avenue4 LLCRead4635

A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.